JETS 35/4 (December 1992) 481-486

1 TIM 2:15:
A POSSIBLE UNDERSTANDING OF A DIFFICULT TEXT
DAVID R. KIMBERLEY*

"Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in

faith and love and holiness, with modesty" (RSV).

Surely 1 Tim 2:15 ranks among the most problematic of texts in the entire
NT. The blatant chauvinism that it appears to reveal and express has
prompted a wide range of interpreters to give it high marks for difficulty. "This
is one of the most difficult verses of the New Testament to interpret," remarks
Litfin.1 The text "must rank among the most difficult expressions in the whole
of the Pastorals," comments Guthrie.2 David Scholer, in the context of pur-
suing some of the many issues surrounding feminist hermeneutics and evan-
gelical values, describes the reference to salvation by childbearing in 1 Tim
2:15 as "notoriously difficult."3 There is no question that the passage raises
numerous questions for the Biblical interpreter, all the more so in a contem-
porary climate where réévaluation of the roles of both men and women is tak-
ing place within society at large as well as within some sectors of the Church.
It will be my object to review how recent commentators have ap-
proached the text and to posit an apparently novel alternative that seeks
to hear the point of 1 Tim 2:15 in the context of gnostic teaching. I shall do
this by outlining what appear to be the prevailing interpretations of the
text as represented by recent exegetes and then by reviewing apparent
gnostic attitudes toward sexuality in general and childbearing in particu-
lar as illustrated in apocryphal NT works. I will then suggest that 1 Tim
2:15 may be understood to speak to those in Ephesus who had come in
contact with and under the sway of erroneous gnostic teaching.
Lexically, two words are pivotal in understanding the verse. The first is
söthesetai. In the synoptics sözö is employed when saving faith has effec-
ted healing of the whole person. In the epistles it is used almost exclu-
sively in reference to the saving activity of God, evinced by the use of
sothênai earlier in 1 Tim 2:2.4 There is thus no escaping the conclusion

* David Kimberley is senior pastor of St. John's United Church of Christ, Tremont and First
Street SE, Massillon, OH 44646.
1
A. D. Litfin, "I Timothy," The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (Wheaton,
Victor, 1986) 736.
2
D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testa-
ment Commentaries 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 77.
3
D. Scholer, "Feminist Hermeneutics and Evangelical Biblical Interpretation," JETS 30/4
(1987) 417.
4
See New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. C. Brown; Grand Rap-
ids: Zondervan, 1978) 3.214.
482 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

that the text is referring to the eternal salvation of women in its fullest
NT sense.
The second word that merits comment is teknogonias, which most
translators render as "bearing children" or αchildbearing.,, The verbal form
of the word appears later in 5:14. One manner of rendering teknogonias is
"the birth of the child," which I will address subsequently. A minority
viewpoint is to render it as "motherhood" or "childrearing" (NEB). This
last possibility may be discarded, however, on the basis that had such
been the focus of the text it is more likely that a term from the teknotro!
pheö word group would have been employed, as in 5:10, instead of teknogo-
nias here in 2:15.
So upon a first reading 1 Tim 2:15 seems to teach that childbearing is
intended to be the instrument of women's salvation in conjunction with
the other qualities enumerated in the second half of the verse.
Moo articulates a common reaction to the implications that such a
reading holds: "Does v. 15 imply that women experience ultimate salva-
tion only insofar as they beget children? Clearly such a conclusion is in-
compatible with Pauline teaching."5 No commentator that I could find
supported the reading, even among those who distanced the text from
Paul by positing non-Pauline authorship. The discontinuity with the rest
of Paul's teachings is too great for anyone familiar with the Pauline cor-
pus, whether we visualize the reader as living in the first, second or twen-
tieth century. What about Christian women who never bear or raise a
child? What about the vocation of lifelong chastity in singleness for
women? Who would have attached in so direct a manner such an unusual
condition to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone? While the verse does
lend itself to such an interpretation upon first reading, few exegetes are
content to rest there. They quickly search for alternate possibilities.
One alternative, the above notwithstanding, is to attribute this text to
non-Pauline sources, thus removing it from the realm of canonical authority:
Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:21-33; I Tim. 2:8-15; 5:3-16; Titus 2:3-5. I have grouped
these passages together because, with the possible exception of Col. 3:18,
none of them was written by Paul. They were all written by followers of Paul,
at a later time (roughly A.D. 80-125), and addressed to situations different
from those Paul faced.6
While I agree . . . that the NT passages supporting the principle of male dom-
inance and female subordination have a common source or origin, I do not
agree that this origin was apostolic. Rather, the passages in question were
introduced in the post-apostolic period, within one particular "wing" of the
Christian tradition, the "Paulist" wing, and are at direct variance with the
clearly articulated views and practices of the Apostle Paul.7
Thus one large group of commentators feels no obligation to further
pursue the text. They merely remove it from the rubric of apostolic compo-

5
D. Moo, "I Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance," Trinity Journal 111 (1980) 72.
6
B. Hall, "Paul and Women," TToday 31/1 (1974) 50.
7
W. Walker, "The 'Theology of Woman's Place' and the Taulinist' Tradition," Semeia 28
(1983) 111.
 1 TIM 2:i5: A POSSIBLE UNDERSTANDING OF A DIFFICULT TEXT 483

sition. The Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles in general and this
text in particular is beyond the intended scope of this article. If removing
the text from the apostle Paul is prompted by discontinuity between cur-
rent cultural values and the perceived import of the text, it is my convic-
tion that such is not necessary in the light of the hypothesis soon to be
delineated. The merits of an exegetical methodology that permits redefin-
ition of the textual canon on the basis of discontinuity with currently re-
tained values is a question that likewise deserves its own treatment.
A second interpretive approach is to view the text as upholding in some
manner the proper role that God intends for women. In other words, in-
stead of directly connecting childbearing with salvation the text is under-
stood to carry a more general message:
[Eve] was deceived by the serpent and transgressed. However, [woman] may
be saved from falling into this error of usurping authority and thus being de-
ceived by Satan, by keeping to the proper function for which she was made.
Bearing children will save her from being tempted to "lord it over" the men.
In this interpretation sözö means being saved from falling into the error just
spoken about and childbearing has its usual sense.8
For his part, Fee states simply: "More likely what Paul intends is that
woman's salvation is to be found in her being a model, godly woman,
known for her good works."9
In my judgment these two renderings under this general approach mi-
grate too far from the lexical impact of the text. We need to ask how the
Ephesians would have heard Paul's remarks. Such interpretations may in-
deed legitimately reside in our own minds, but would the Ephesians have
heard the text in the same manner? Would they have understood sözö to
speak of the avoidance of Eve's original error? Would they have under-
stood this text to simply uphold the model of godly womanhood? Both of
these interpretations deflect the focus of 1 Tim 2:15 in such a manner as
to make it unlikely that the Ephesians would have heard either of them.
We need to consider yet other possibilities.
The third alternative most commonly encountered among contempo-
rary commentators is to render teknogonias as "the childbearing" rather
than the more general "childbearing," to see it as an allusion to the one
birth that has had soteric significance for all—the birth of Jesus Christ.
Spencer adopts this line of reasoning:
Paul closes this small section of his letter to Timothy reminding the male in-
structores) and reassuring the female student(s) that the salvation of the
woman is never to be questioned (verse 15). The use of the singular article
would suggest that "the child-bearing" refers to the one most significant
child-bearing for Christians. It was through Eve that transgression entered
this earth. It was through another woman, Mary, that salvation came.10
While many do not find this interpretation persuasive, it has the ad-
vantage of speaking to the context supplied by 2:12-14 in such a manner
8
S. Jebb, "A Suggested Interpretation of I Timothy 2:15," ExpTim 81/7 (1970) 221.
9
G. Fee, I & II Timothy, Titus (Good News Commentary; San Francisco: Harper, 1984) 38.
10
A. Spencer, "Eve at Ephesus," JETS ΠΙΑ, (1974) 220.
484 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

as to retain a redemptive and thoroughly Pauline meaning and intent.

More than that, this approach retains the lexical impact of the verse in a
manner that seems plausible for its original hearer(s). The interpretation
is dependent, of course, upon the more focused meaning of teknogonias
with the definite article. Those who demur from this interpretation do so
because they regard that rendering as grammatically strained.
I suggest, however, that even this interpretation does not fully appreci-
ate the theological and ethical possibilities in the context of Ephesus at
the time. One more possibility exists, and that is that Paul is speaking to
gnostic ideas that had infiltrated the minds of some of the believers in
Ephesus. A comprehensive investigation seeking to document the presence
of gnostic thinking in first-century Ephesus is needed in order to present
this possibility in more definitive form than what can be offered here.
Only the hypothesis will be outlined. Further research will be needed to
establish it in an uncontested manner.
First, what indications do we have in the letter about the problems
that prompted Paul's communiqué? Some members of the church were
teaching different doctrine (1:3), occupying themselves with myths and ge-
nealogies (1:4), misapplying the law (1:7), rejecting conscience (1:19). In
chap. 4 Paul speaks to those whose consciences are seared (4:2), who for-
bid marriage (4:3), and who enjoin abstinence from foods (4:3) as a reflec-
tion of those who depart from the faith in the latter times (4:1). Some
gnostic teaching did indeed forbid marriage and retain a dim view of sex-
ual relations. Whether 4:1-3 represents a specific allusion to gnostic influ-
ence in the Ephesian church is not clear because of the brevity of the
reference. It does, however, raise the distinct possibility.
That a struggle did arise between gnosticism and orthodox Christian
faith is well documented throughout the first and second centuries, most
clearly in the form of apocryphal NT works that were excluded from the
canon and the writings of the early apologists. In the apocryphal writings
we catch a glimpse of gnostic attitudes toward sexuality that had been in-
tegrated into those groups that had pursued a synthesis of gnostic themes
with the teachings of Jesus. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas represents but
one illustration of this. Happily we now have access to the body of that
work. For other works we are dependent on fragments or quotes from
them in the writings of the early fathers. 11
A prominent theme in gnosticism was that the distinction between
male and female was an error, that salvation lay in the dissolution of that
distinction and the absorption of the two sexes into an androgynous
unity. 12 Spirit is good; matter is evil. The goal of salvation is for spirit to
free itself from the entanglement of matter. The dichotomy between spirit
and matter led to two extremes: a pansexualism that was justified on the
grounds that matter could not tarnish spirit on the one hand, and an as-
ceticism that sought to amputate any affinity in the world of matter from
spiritual experience on the other.

See M James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford Clarendon, 1924)

See R Grant, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (New York Doubleday, 1960) 80
 1 TIM 2:i5: A POSSIBLE UNDERSTANDING OF A DIFFICULT TEXT 485

Such distortions in the latter category find expression in the Gospel of

Thomas and in Clement of Alexandria's references to the Gospel of the
Egyptians, among others:
Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are
not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male
so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman
who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."13
When the Lord was asked by someone when his kingdom would come, he
said, "When the two will be one, and the outside like the inside, and the male
with the female neither male nor female."14 ^
Hippolytus describes the Naassenes as believing that primordial humans
were androgynous, and they consequently rejected sexual intercourse (Ref
5, 7, 39). 15
What impact would such teaching have upon the notion of childbirth?
"Women should refrain from bearing children, as Thomas makes clear
when he combines Luke 11:27-28 with Luke 23:29 (Saying 79). Their only
hope lies in their potential ability to become men."16 Especially instructive
for our inquiry into the meaning of 1 Tim 2:15, however, is Clement's
quote from the Gospel of the Egyptians:
Salome said, "How long will men die?"
The Lord replied, "As long as you women bring forth."
Salome replied, "I did well, then, by not bringing forth."
The Lord said, "Eat every plant, but do not eat the one which contains bitterness."
Salome asked when what she was inquiring about would be known.
The Lord said, "When you trample on the garment of shame, and when the two
become one, and the male with the female neither male nor female."17
Thus we observe that childbearing, far from being a legitimate vocation
for women, was viewed in gnosticism as the exact opposite. Indeed one can
easily visualize a gnostic viewing the birth of a child as a sorrowful illus-
tration of the main problem of life: Yet another soul has entered the world
of matter. Now we observe that there is great distance between Ephesus
and Egypt, where the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Egyptians
were most likely composed, and that there is also a time lag between the
apostolic era and that of Clement of Alexandria (late second century). But
if the Gospel of the Egyptians had been composed and gained enough of a
hearing to warrant comment on Clement's part, if Origen (Horn. 1 on Luke)
referred to the Gospel of Thomas,18 then it would be reasonable to hypoth-
esize that similar gnostic themes were prevalent in the apostolic era even
if they had not yet been synthesized or systematized in theological trea-
tises of the stature of the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of the Egyptians.

13
The concluding pericope of Gos. Thorn. ; cf. J. Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian
Gnostics (New York: Viking, 1960) 370.
14
2 Clem. 2:12; cf. Grant, Secret 79.
15
Ibid. 144.
16
Ibid. 81.
17
Ibid. 37. See also James, Apocryphal 10-12.
18
See James, Apocryphal 14.
486 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

In short, I suggest that 1 Tim 2:15 is expressed in response to errone-

ous gnostic teaching in Ephesus to the effect that childbearing was an oc-
casion for condemnation for Christian women. The sense of the text is that
women will be saved in childbearing, not condemned, as long as they con-
tinue in faith. Paul's intent is to restore this womanly vocation to its
rightful place in contrast to the manner in which it was depreciated in
gnostic circles. He includes this concern along with the other different doc-
trines that are of concern to him in his communication with Timothy.
The immediacy of 2:15 with vv. 12-14 reinforces the plausibility of this
interpretation. Paul has just reminded the Ephesians (through Timothy's
instrumentality) that Eve was the first transgressor, not Adam, perhaps
because Ephesian women were the ones who were so vociferous in misin-
terpreting the law (cf. 1:8). He has just dealt them a blow and issued a re-
striction (2:12). Now he wants to do the opposite. He does not want them
to associate his observation about Eve with the deprecatory view that
gnosticism held toward womanhood. He wants to restore childbearing as a
valid vocation for women, perhaps in contradistinction to what those in-
fluenced by gnosticism in the Ephesian fellowship were saying. He also
wants to distinguish himself from gnostic myths about creation that bor-
der on misogyny. Some gnostics' view of creation was that the male is
identified with spirit (and is therefore good) whereas the female is iden-
tified with matter (and is therefore evil). 19 From the Biblical perspective
the creation of male and female was God's idea and is good.20 God com-
mended and blessed childbearing, which is an expression of his original
and gracious intention and not an illustration and perpetuation of human-
ity's primary problem. Having pointed to Eve's culpability in the fall Paul
now wants to limit just exactly how culpable womanhood is. Childbearing
does not bring condemnation upon a woman. She will be saved through
bearing children if she continues in the essential attributes of faith and
love and holiness, with modesty.
In order for this reading to become definitive for 1 Tim 2:15, further re-
search would need to document a significant gnostic presence in Ephesus
during the apostolic era. But given the well-known proximity and inter-
mingling of gnostic teaching in the Mediterranean region during the first
century and the clashes with the Christian community in the second, such
a possibility is more than conjectural.21 Given the manner in which it ex-
plains the exegetical issues resident in 1 Tim 2:15, it is at least appealing
if not persuasive.

1
Doresse (Secret 17-18) quotes the following passage from the Great Revelation attributed
to Simon Magus, a founder of gnosticism according to one gnostic myth, as contained in the
Philosophoumena by Hippolytus of Rome: "Among the totality of the Aeons, two emanations
there are that have neither beginning nor end. They sprang from the one and only root which
is a power: the Silence invisible and incomprehensible. One of these is manifested on high, the
Spirit of the All which governs everything; it is masculine. The other is from below; it is a great
thought, feminine, which gives birth to all things."
20
Gen 1:28.
21
See K. Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper, 1953) 123-125.